If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

You consider the location of the recovered bone shards to be self-demonstrating and not require a link, while the identification of the Pentagon remains does? What's the standard here?

I consider jdaltroy's claim of bias to require support. Shiva had no obligation to provide information about the dna process used on the bone shards because it wasn't relevant to his point, he was arguing that the location was evidence of an explosion.

jdal claim is what required a link, since to that point it hadn't been in dispute. In the case of the Pentagon, the identity and veracity of the DNA evidence is the topic and has been in dispute since before gameboy entered the thread with his unsupported assurance.

He ascribes it a lower probability of being true just because the testing was done by "the government." That only works if you include the premise that all government employees share the motive to lie and participate in the cover-up, which is a dubious statement at best.

All arguments rely on premise. For instance trusting the Pentagon DNA evidence requires the premise that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology was not involved. You could certainly make the argument that is "dubious". But it wasn't the one jdaltroy made.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by jimmifli

jdal claim is what required a link, since to that point it hadn't been in dispute. In the case of the Pentagon, the identity and veracity of the DNA evidence is the topic and has been in dispute since before gameboy entered the thread with his unsupported assurance.

All arguments rely on premise. For instance trusting the Pentagon DNA evidence requires the premise that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology was not involved. You could certainly make the argument that is "dubious". But it wasn't the one jdaltroy made.

You are treating "they are biased" and "they are unbiased" as claims which are of equal probability. There has not been (to my knowledge) any question of the AFIP's ability to perform the discussed DNA tests, only their motives to falsify the results. And they claimed those tests confirmed the identities of the dead passengers and pilots.

So what are we left with? Either the tests confirm what the AFIP says they do, or they lied about them. How can someone prove who was "not involved" with 9/11? Especially since, as has been discussed ad nauseum, there is no consensus whatsoever on what the MIHOP theory entails. So nothing is left but to endlessly prove a negative -the lack of bias or involvement. Remember, the only evidence of a motive here is Sparty's outright claim of one, backed up with nothing.

What should the AFIP do to counteract this? Release the results? That still leaves the possibility that those results were forged.
Release the tissue samples? That still leaves the possibility that the tissue was obtained somewhere other than the Pentagon.

As soon as "the government" took control of the crash scene, that was the end of it. Anything produced from that wreck can (and most have) be accused of being tampered with or planted. That's the conspiracy theory rabbit hole.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

You are treating "they are biased" and "they are unbiased" as claims which are of equal probability.

No. I haven't made a claim. I was just pointing out that everything relies on a premise. Whether they are equal relies on the evidence.

There has not been (to my knowledge) any question of the AFIP's ability to perform the discussed DNA tests, only their motives to falsify the results. And they claimed those tests confirmed the identities of the dead passengers and pilots.

So what are we left with? Either the tests confirm what the AFIP says they do, or they lied about them. How can someone prove who was "not involved" with 9/11? Especially since, as has been discussed ad nauseum, there is no consensus whatsoever on what the MIHOP theory entails. So nothing is left but to endlessly prove a negative -the lack of bias or involvement. Remember, the only evidence of a motive here is Sparty's outright claim of one, backed up with nothing.

What should the AFIP do to counteract this? Release the results? That still leaves the possibility that those results were forged.
Release the tissue samples? That still leaves the possibility that the tissue was obtained somewhere other than the Pentagon.

As soon as "the government" took control of the crash scene, that was the end of it. Anything produced from that wreck can (and most have) be accused of being tampered with or planted. That's the conspiracy theory rabbit hole.

That might be true but it's irrelevant to anything I've said. I'm not making the argument they are untrustworthy, or that they are or aren't part of a conspiracy.

I posted a link to the thread that refuted something jdaltroy posted. He then posted a bunch of flawed arguments that were slimy and chicken**** to which I replied and managed to add 2 pages to the thread without contributing much to the discussion.

I don't really have a horse in this race other than the fact that I enjoy watching people make illogical arguments trying to "gotcha" shiva.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

No. I haven't made a claim. I was just pointing out that everything relies on a premise.

That's true, but it's not a profound statement.

Whether they are equal relies on the evidence.

That might be true but it's irrelevant to anything I've said. I'm not making the argument they are untrustworthy, or that they are or aren't part of a conspiracy.

Of course you are. In defending Shiva's conclusion as "reasonable" and "logically sound", you are endorsing his claim built on a dubious premise. As you surely know, for an argument to be "sound" it must first be "true", which requires all of its premises to be true. His premise is highly questionable but you accepted it anyway.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Of course you are. In defending Shiva's conclusion as "reasonable" and "logically sound", you are endorsing his claim built on a dubious premise. As you surely know, for an argument to be "sound" it must first be "true", which requires all of its premises to be true. His premise is highly questionable but you accepted it anyway.

You need to go back and read my posts more carefully.

The claim was that shiva used bias when evaluating evidence, as support for this claim the example of trusting boneshard DNA more than the pentagon DNA was provided. I posted contrary evidence showing that the boneshard evidence was superior evidence and that no bias was required to come to that conclusion.

Remember, shiva's post said that he trusted impartial evidence more than evidence which might not be impartial. That is logically sound and doesn't require bias to come to that conclusion.

Now, what you are arguing is the scale of judgement. You may say the difference is meaningless, where as in his judgement it is very meaningful. Then each of you could provide evidence that supported your position or weakened the others. That would be a fine way for the thread to proceed.

But that isn't what jdaltroy did, and that isn't what my posts are about.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by jimmifli

You need to go back and read my posts more carefully.

The claim was that shiva used bias when evaluating evidence, as support for this claim the example of trusting boneshard DNA more than the pentagon DNA was provided. I posted contrary evidence showing that the boneshard evidence was superior evidence and that no bias was required to come to that conclusion.

Remember, shiva's post said that he trusted impartial evidence more than evidence which might not be impartial. That is logically sound and doesn't require bias to come to that conclusion.

Shiva outright declared that the construction workers had no motive to lie but the military lab techs did. There has been no evidence provided for either of those statements. Accepting logic built on those statements as "sound" accepts those statements themselves as "true." You cannot call it "sound" logic with out that endorsement of its factual truth. Are you intending to call it "valid"?

Now, what you are arguing is the scale of judgement. You may say the difference is meaningless, where as in his judgement it is very meaningful. Then each of you could provide evidence that supported your position or weakened the others. That would be a fine way for the thread to proceed.

But that isn't what jdaltroy did, and that isn't what my posts are about.

I have no concern about jdaltroy's position. He's made his own arguments. What I'm criticizing is logic such as attributing common motives to vast heterogenous entities like "the government" being treated as a reasonable assumption that requires no further support. That's not an attempt to "gotcha" Shiva/Spartacus, it's calling him out for building arguments on nothing more than Isayso.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Shiva outright declared that the construction workers had no motive to lie but the military lab techs did.

No he didn't.

There has been no evidence provided for either of those statements.

That's not true either. He posted that the construction workers have no motive. Motive is evidence. He also posted that the government has motive to lie. This is also evidence.
You might argue that it isn't strong evidence, which would be fine, but it isn't correct to say no evidence was provided.

Accepting logic built on those statements as "sound" accepts those statements themselves as "true." You cannot call it "sound" logic with out that endorsement of its factual truth. Are you intending to call it "valid"?

Look at his statement again.

He trusts evidence from a source with no motive to lie over a source with a motive to lie. That is a valid conclusion. If you would like to attack that conclusion you could provide evidence that the construction workers aren't trustworthy or that the government is. But at the point I entered the thread that had not happened yet.

I have no concern about jdaltroy's position. He's made his own arguments.

You may not have concern about jdaltroy's position, but it is what every one of my replies references.

What I'm criticizing is logic such as attributing common motives to vast heterogenous entities like "the government" being treated as a reasonable assumption that requires no further support. That's not an attempt to "gotcha" Shiva/Spartacus, it's calling him out for building arguments on nothing more than Isayso.

Those might be valid arguments to make but they don't have anything to do with me or my participation in this thread.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by jimmifli

That was provided in the article posted. The bone shards were collected by construction workers and processed by the NY medical examiners office. The pentagon DNA was handled by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

I'm a little surprised that you're asking that at this point in the argument. You make an accusation of bias without even knowing the basic facts that shiva presented. What would make you come to such a hasty conclusion?

I know this isn't pertinent to the direct discussion, but now the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology would have to be involved in the cover up. This is one of the biggest reasons that I just can't believe it was a cover up. Every time some piece of information comes in that validates the original story, then it is automatically discounted as being a discredited agency or official.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by jimmifli

No he didn't.

That's not true either. He posted that the construction workers have no motive. Motive is evidence. He also posted that the government has motive to lie. This is also evidence.
You might argue that it isn't strong evidence, which would be fine, but it isn't correct to say no evidence was provided.

That is completely ridiculous. Motive isn't "evidence" just by the mere fact of you stating it. Motive needs to be proved with evidence. You can't just say "He had motive to kill her because he stood to make money." You have to prove he thought that he stood to make money. A life insurance policy, a contract on her life, a will, whatever. I could claim that the construction workers were all fans of Loose Change and had motive to plant the bone shards so they'd be name dropped in the sequel. That's a motive - but it's one I completely made up without a shred of backing. That's why it's not evidence.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by IlluminatusUIUC

That is completely ridiculous. Motive isn't "evidence" just by the mere fact of you stating it. Motive needs to be proved with evidence. You can't just say "He had motive to kill her because he stood to make money."

Motive, means and opportunity are evidence. They would be stronger if they were supported by other pieces of evidence, or weaker if they were refuted by other pieces of evidence.

You're arguing about the value of the evidence. Is motive enough to convince you? Obviously no. You require further evidence. Great. Me too.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by jdaltroy5

I know this isn't pertinent to the direct discussion, but now the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology would have to be involved in the cover up. This is one of the biggest reasons that I just can't believe it was a cover up. Every time some piece of information comes in that validates the original story, then it is automatically discounted as being a discredited agency or official.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by jimmifli

You're welcome to point out my illogicals.

Well the only thing I can say from what I've read so far is that the whole bone shard thing that Sharticus is pimping as evidence of an explosion, makes me wonder why the loudest, most visible and most obvious explosions (the plane impacts) aren't the prime candidates? There are reports of other explosions, but certainly none close to the size of those caused by plane impacts, and all the other explosions do not necessarily have a nefarious explanation.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by Berger-boy

Well the only thing I can say from what I've read so far is that the whole bone shard thing that Sharticus is pimping as evidence of an explosion, makes me wonder why the loudest, most visible and most obvious explosions (the plane impacts) aren't the prime candidates? There are reports of other explosions, but certainly none close to the size of those caused by plane impacts, and all the other explosions do not necessarily have a nefarious explanation.

So you have bone shards. So? There were some massive explosions. And?

Can you quote where I said bone shards are evidence of controlled demolition?

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by Berger-boy

Well the only thing I can say from what I've read so far is that the whole bone shard thing that Sharticus is pimping as evidence of an explosion, makes me wonder why the loudest, most visible and most obvious explosions (the plane impacts) aren't the prime candidates? There are reports of other explosions, but certainly none close to the size of those caused by plane impacts, and all the other explosions do not necessarily have a nefarious explanation.

So you have bone shards. So? There were some massive explosions. And?

Further, the bone shards on the Deutsche Bank roof were tiny. As described in the USA today article, some were the size of finger nails. I have not seen any claim of how big they would have been on 9/11, prior to decay, but considering the proximity it seems plausible to me they could have been carried there by the wind and dust or by animals.

Re: 9/11 - What convinced you?

Originally Posted by IlluminatusUIUC

Further, the bone shards on the Deutsche Bank roof were tiny. As described in the USA today article, some were the size of finger nails. I have not seen any claim of how big they would have been on 9/11, prior to decay, but considering the proximity it seems plausible to me they could have been carried there by the wind and dust or by animals.